From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-24 00:24:35
Beman Dawes said:
> At 10:24 AM 1/22/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> >"Raoul Gough" <raoulgough_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> OK, I'll go with that (see the attached diff - it does the trick on
> Win2000). David, do you mind if I check this in?
> >looks good to me!
> I haven't been following this thread, or the one about gcc-nocygwin.
> "gcc" is currently used for the Win32 regression tests. I do have cygwin
> installed on my machine, but get the gcc sources directly and compile
> them for the version used in the tests.
> If any of that should change, please let me know.
Once the dust settles, yes, I think something should change. The gcc
toolset, using a Cygwin compiler, picks up the Cygwin POSIX emulation
layer and effects how many libraries get compiled/implemented. For
example, it causes the Boost.Threads library to build using pthreads
instead of Win32 threads. I think this is at least misleading, when it's
reported as a "Windows" compiler. The question would be, then, whether or
not the Windows regression report should only be using gcc-nocygwin, or if
it maybe should be using both toolsets.
William E. Kempf
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk